×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EasyDNS Falsely Accused of Unplugging WikiLeaks

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the caught-in-the-crossfire dept.

Censorship 267

kdawson writes "EasyDNS, a DNS and hosting provider, was mistakenly identified in press accounts as the entity that knocked wikileaks.org off the Net. It wasn't them, it was EveryDNS, a completely separate outfit. EasyDNS suffered a series of online reprisals as the false attribution spread. When WikiLeaks approached them to add to the robustness of their DNS support, EasyDNS said yes." And just to be fair on the disclosure thing- I've been using EasyDNS for many many many years and have always had great service, so I just thought it was cool that they stand up for the cause.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

267 comments

It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it (3, Interesting)

Aussenseiter (1241842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34502940)

RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34502988)

Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule! We're making a difference, people! Keep it up! Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule!

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503590)

The only thing worse than mob rule is oppressive tyranny.

Somehow a fear of the former has always been used, by the wealthy and powerful, to have the population embrace the latter...

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503836)

The only thing worse than mob rule is oppressive tyranny.

Somehow a fear of the former has always been used, by the wealthy and powerful, to have the population embrace the latter...

The latter harms innocents. The former is harming innocents. It looks like a witch, so we should burn it!

The latter is FORMED by the former. The latter is avoided by cooler heads avoiding the former.

The latter is hyperbole by conspiracy theorists in terms of what the US is.. The former is demonstrably reality now.

I can't wait until the stories about the mob silencing innocent people who look kinda sorta like people who disagree with them start coming out, and then seeing everyone justify it as "well, it's better than that gosh-darn democratic/republic tyranny I'm certain would've happened if we looked harder and extrapolated more!".

Oh, wait, that's happening NOW.

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34502998)

Are you referring to the ones that shoot bees out of their mouth, or the ones with frikkin' laser beams attatched to their groins?

Innocent until proven guilty (2)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503228)

Huh. I wonder where this weird idea of "innocent until proven guilty" came from... Hm.

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it (2)

rtyhurst (460717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503272)

Yes!

DDoS them all, except Wikileaks of course.

Well, maybe them too just to show we mean business...

I am totally into Wikileaks now! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503732)

YARGH! Damn the G-Man, and let slip the DoS scripts of war!

Hoist the skull and crossbones, me mateys, and let us send these oppressive land lubbers to the briny deep!

Wait, what, falsely accused? (lowers authentic reproduction sabre) Aw, nuts. :-(

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503760)

It started with the first commenter on the TechDirt [techdirt.com] article who "corrected" Mike Masnick. It turns out that Mike was correct and the poster inadvertently caused all kinds of problems for EasyDNS.

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503962)

It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

Insanity wolf, is that you?

Truth matters? (2)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503002)

Accuracy matters not in Security Theatre.

Re:Truth matters? (1)

crush (19364) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503794)

Seeing as you care about accuracy: the phrase "security theatre" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Re:Truth matters? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504094)

It is more than accuracy. THIS is why Vigilantism is wrong.

The problem here is that the mob doesn't care about innocents that get caught up in their self righteous indignation. They are no better than the tyrants whom they oppose.

Do not misunderstand me. I don't give a whit about Julian or his leaking wikis, and the idiots trying to kill the messenger. I do care about the idiot that had access to all the secrets and charged with keeping them secret violating that trust. I also care about the "secrecy" of public knowledge many of the cables, and why it was classified. There is almost nothing in what I've seen in the latest release that surprises me or something I already knew. It is all a bunch of *yawn* for me and not the "treasure" people think it is. I also care equally about the vigilantism that is brewing in the wake of this mess. Criminals are criminals.

I also wonder why the idiots running the vigilante mobs have targeted Sarah Palin for her comments, but not anyone in the Obama Administration for similar comments? Gee whiz, if that isn't transparent juvenile politics and a great reason why all the (R) bad (D) good types (and visa versa) should be simply ignored from now on.

Mob Justice (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503014)

So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing parties involved in the whole Wikileaks thing as some sort of testament to free speech. But this isn't free speech anymore, it's just mob justice and there's no due process in mob justice.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503200)

EasyDNS seems to be condemned into oblivion by SlashMob. Free speech resulted in DDOS.

Re:Mob Justice (5, Insightful)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503204)

So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing

Really? I've been reading most (probably all) wikileaks stories on slashdot since this whole mess started, and I got the impression that the vast majority of the slashdotters agree this is a stupid way to "support" wikileaks.

Re:Mob Justice (2)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503226)

There's no due process in mob justice.

There's no justice without due process.

What goes around comes around.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503868)

What goes around may come around, but mysteriously it always seems to hit the worst actors last.

Re:Mob Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503328)

Better the justice of a mob than the "justice" of an international oligarchy of politicians too lazy or stupid to get a fucking grip on their own comms security. Wikileaks or an entity like it is now a permanent feature of the internet. If you try to amputate that feature, the internet will fight you off. And you'll always lose.

Re:Mob Justice (2)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503548)

not really, most people on here aren't too hot on the DDOSing unless they're AC though the slashdot crowd are quicker to shout down some of the more idiotic/sensationalist claims (like people calling the DDOS a "violent attack" ) .

I support wikileaks, I don't support the DDoSing of sites of everyone who ceases doing buisness with them.

Re:Mob Justice (5, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503596)

So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing parties involved in the whole Wikileaks thing as some sort of testament to free speech. But this isn't free speech anymore, it's just mob justice and there's no due process in mob justice.

There's actually quite a history of civil disobedience in the US. Boycotts, sit in's, protests all of which were illegal under the law and involved large numbers of citizens intentionally disobeying the law in order to get a point across and show public support. DDoSing Visa's Web site doesn't do any real damage to anything, with minimal financial damage and no one lynched. It does, however, bring attention to the issue and pressure corporations, lawmakers, and elected executives around the world to make a change.

When blacks were arrested by the hundreds for "hindering a bus" during the Rosa King chapter of the civil rights movement, those people were not using "due process" to change the segregation laws and they could just as easily be described as "mob justice" shutting down the bus system in a major US city. If the civil rights movement were happening now would they be arrested for terrorist acts sabotaging public transit?

While I'm not wholly for nor against the level of disclosure wikileaks seems to be presenting I do recognize this as a free speech/civil rights issue and if people feel strongly enough to risk their freedom via civil disobedience movements like this, I can respect that. To dismiss it as "undemocratic" or "mob justice" is to ignore very important lessons from our not so distant history.

Re:Mob Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34504004)

There's actually quite a history of civil disobedience in the US. Boycotts, sit in's, protests all of which were illegal under the law and involved large numbers of citizens intentionally disobeying the law in order to get a point across and show public support.

Boycotts are legal [wikipedia.org] . As are some sit in's and most protests.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

alonsoac (180192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504154)

the only change that can come from these DDOS attacks is more investment in network security (more costs which could end up driving consumer prices up) and more severe cybercrime laws. I don't see how anyone can benefit from this.
And shutting down sites because you dont agree with what the owner says or does goes against free speech as people will keep quiet just to avoid being attacked.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503624)

I don't know what this article has to do with mob justice. Perhaps you want the previous one about attacking Amazon.

In this case, people were accusing EasyDNS of doing something they didn't do. That includes the mainstream media, who seemed to borrow the story from Twitter without bothering to fact check. This story is correcting the record.

There's no "mob rule" here, unless by mob you mean the media.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503978)

The media is allowed to get away with that far too often under the guise of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press was intended to ensure that the press could report on potential malfeasance on the part of government officials, not as a way of protecting the press from having to do their due diligance.

Many lives have been ruined by the press publishing the names of accused pedophiles and rapists who turned out to be innocent and were also acquitted at trial. The coverage in some of those cases would go on for years, leading people to remember the individual as guilty rather than the later article, assuming it was published at all, where the individual was acquitted. Richard Jewell [wikipedia.org] is probably one of the best examples out there, although there is also Michael Jackson who will always be regarded as guilty, despite being acquitted.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503772)

I think when there's little due process in "actual" justice, people start cheering on mob justice.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503792)

But this isn't free speech anymore, it's just mob justice and there's no due process in mob justice.

Actually, I didn't start cheering *until* it become mob justice. :-)

It gives a happy to the little anarchist that lives in my black, stunted heart.

So ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503810)

what justice would it be ? regular justice ? which can only be had, if you have heaps of cash. and even in that case you would get less justice than those who have more ?

the justice which is totally subservient to the administrations, which are actually people who have won elections with direct or indirect support and funding of established private interests ? even the supreme court judges are directly appointed.

if, you leave no justice option for people to pursue, they pursue mob justice. thats the cold hard reality of life.

Re:Mob Justice (4, Informative)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503812)

So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing parties involved in the whole Wikileaks thing as some sort of testament to free speech.

No, I don't think that's all that fair of a brush to paint with. In the last story on the /. main page, the one regarding Anon's threat of DDOSing Amazon, I just read at least five highly moderated comments that read along the lines of, "This is a criminal activity and the idiots doing it should be persecuted as such." I also read a few, "They're only making things worse. Retards..."

So saying that slashdot is cheering on Anonymous is pretty disingenuous. So far as I can tell, the slashdot crowd is pretty evenly divided on this particular topic, as they are on most (not all) things.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503816)

No, they're cheering it on because its like bloodsport for IT professionals.

"Oh man! That DDOS had to HURT!"

"No way man! Amazon's got MOVES. Its probably got some sort of adaptive algorithm on their upstream routers that is intercepting and discarding most of the packets."

"Fuck that, nothing can stop an attack that big, who do you think they are, the NSA?"

"They've got a CLOUD, man. Besides the NSA are pussies. Everyone knows that they don't even have enough power at Fort Meade to even run half that shit."

Re:Mob Justice (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503850)

It never was "Free Speech", it was just vigilante justice. It's become 'mob justice' simply by the popular appeal.

I don't agree with much of what Wikileaks has done; I think Asange should be hung by his toes until his legs are free of blood. But at the same time, the "System" has wronged him - and more importantly, wronged the Process of Law. The System - government and corporations/banks - are way out of line. In these kinds of situations, it would seem that it takes Mob Rule for justice to be served.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503958)

To be fair, there also seems to be a failure of due process when ISPs and payment processors are pressured into cutting off wikileaks, without wikileaks having been found guilty of any crime. The anonymous guys presumably want to balance things up a little. Whether they're doing it the right way is open to question, but nobody else seems to be sticking up for wikileaks.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504068)

I believe Due Process is one of the freedoms our government is working fervently to abolish, so I say turnabout is fair play.

The government grants due process to the citizens, it doesn't flow the other way.

Re:Mob Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34504080)

I believe there are is a good amount of people here who believe that these DDOS attacks are nonsense. It could even be a silent majority. But the kiddies are making all the news. Oh no.. I hope they don't DDOS my site for saying this. I post anonymously as I actually fear these kids. I guess the cyberterrorists have won.

Re:Mob Justice (1)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504122)

I'm sure the members of Anonymous feel terrible and are busy crafting an apology. You're right of course, this has mob mentality written all over it.

But the newspaper said so! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503050)

What? Not everything we read in the papers is true? Unheard of!

I wonder... (1)

girlintrainingpants (1954872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503056)

Will this boost their business, or will it hurt it? I wonder what will show up as the top hundred results in a few weeks...

EasyDNS Plugged WikiLeaks
or
EasyDNS falsely accused of unplugging WikiLeaks

Only time can tell, but I would guess the latter. Kind of like when my local paper misprints something and they apologize in a short posting in an unread section between two huge car ads...

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503118)

Probably gonna hurt it. Good question to raise tho

Re:I wonder... (1)

quangdog (1002624) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503122)

Isn't the old saying: "Any publicity is good publicity?". The fact that they are the subject of any articles will help push them up to the top of the heap of google search results.

Re:I wonder... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504030)

I suspect that it will help a lot. The people that liked them pulling the plug are typically too stupid to notice that it was retracted. And the people that disliked it are usually up enough on it that they notice the retraction.

Consequently, I suspect that this is probably going to be more upside than downside for them.

The cause? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503058)

Fuck you, taco. Way to flush any journalistic integrity you may have had left right down the toilet.

Are you confused? (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503156)

Taco has never claimed to be a journalist. Slashdot has never claimed to be impartial. It's still basically Taco's blog, if you want journalism, try AP, or Reuters, or something like that.

Shut up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503280)

This site is anything BUT a blog, you stupid preschooler. Why don't you go crawl back up into your mother's womb where you belong, BABY?

Re:Shut up (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503684)

Honestly, what are you trying to accomplish with the insults? Trying to hurt my feelings? Seriously, do you think that works? Your insults are just precious. I mean, calling someone a preschooler and a baby is just adorable and refreshing in these profanity laced modern times.

Trying to look the big man? I don't think anyone cares. Doing a little trolling? You get one response from me, just for fun. I like trolls. Especially adorable profanity avoiding trolls like you seem to be.

Carrying around that much anger can be really bad for your health. Anger management classes, meditation, or just some good old fashioned sex might help bring your blood pressure down before something important goes pop.

I do hope you enjoy the attention. Interacting with other human beings feels good, doesn't it? I know the type of interaction seems irrelevant, but you should try "friendly" interactions, they feel even better!

Re:Shut up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503768)

You have time to reply? What are you, a Dennis Nedry with a bag of chips constantly hitting refresh and looking to see whether you got a reply? Are you? Please, please just leave the Internet now. It would be better for you, me, and the community.

Re:Shut up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503740)

Sure. Just as soon as I'm done with yo' mama's womb.....stanks in here, don't it?

Re:The cause? (1)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503306)

FYI, FWIW: note that the actual submission is from 'kdawson', not CmdrTaco.

Taco posted it. I guess he could have edited that part in, but I think that text is probably from the 'kdawson' submission...

Re:The cause? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503578)

The quote ends and the last part is Taco's commentary. Why Taco (and seemingly the majority of the slashdot community) support(s) wikileaks is another question entirely. These people are breaking international laws on so many levels, putting innocent lives in danger (and have likely already caused deaths), and there is no way to justify it.

Re:The cause? (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503866)

The problem is that what wikileaks does is not illegal in almost any country that values freedom of the press. Especially not in the US.

What they're uncovering is often the illegal behaviour of governments which are justifying actions based on popular support (which there was right after 9/11), and then not doing those actions, but something worse. Don't shoot the messenger. This is why the US enshrined freedom of the press in their constitution in the first place.

Re:The cause? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503922)

This does not fall under freedom of the press. Does the press have the right to release copyrighted books in their entirety? They are not allowed to be messengers of all information ever.

Gawker is partially at fault (1)

atomicthumbs (824207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503144)

and they're being assholes about it/a? [reddit.com]

Re:Gawker is partially at fault (1)

Coldegg (1956060) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503526)

Each media outlet is still responsible for the content they push out... regardless of whether or not somebody randomly says something they should check up on it. Which, means that /. is partially responsible as well. Ofc, one can hardly call this unbiased media.

Re:Gawker is partially at fault (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504136)

What you're surprised at this? These are the same people who run second and third hand information as if it's factual.

Guess that explains that (2)

TraumaHound (30184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503148)

That should solve the mystery of why Wikileaks "went back" to EasyDNS for hosting. Shame that people didn't dig a little deeper when that seemed weird.

"Stand up for the cause"? (1, Troll)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503162)

What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?

Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.

Assange has already said he considers himself a "media insurgent", and that if forced to choose between "journalist" and activist/advocate, he would choose the latter. His response to a Washington Post reporter's query he apparently felt wasn't deserving of his attention was, "I'm too busy ending two wars."

He's an egomaniac, and the fact that Wikileaks is "going to publish classified information anyway" is used as a justification by mainstream media outlets to go ahead with the publication, under the guise of the public's "right to know". Well, since Wikileaks would likely publish any and all classified information it could get its hands on, my interpretation of the media's justification is that they feel they, not the government that works on behalf of the people, are the arbiters of what does and doesn't constitute properly-classified national security information.

That's exactly where this is leading, and what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies. Steven Aftergood, a guy who is a veteran crusader against excessive government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, said, "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals." Indeed.

THIS [nytimes.com] is restricting press freedoms.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503436)

What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?

There was no "illegally-released classified information". It was/is not illegal for the information to be released by wikileaks or the many other large news networks in the US that have published it. The Supreme Court says so, see "Pentagon Papers". So STOP saying that!

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504104)

The release TO Wikileaks is what was illegal. Since Assange isn't a journalist and wikileaks isn't a media organization, they may or may not have committed illegal acts (soliciting people to commit espionage) as well. But for Manning (or theoretically someone else, I guess) to give them the documents in the first place was "an illegal release of classified information."

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503482)

Whose individual rights has Wikileaks not honored?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503498)

Wikileaks have not broken any laws.

Nice try though.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (2)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503500)

Such pragmatic, sensible thinking is not in fashion [slashdot.org] at the moment.
I throw wikileaks into the same box as the tea-party movement. The anti-establishment craze will not last forever, though.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (5, Insightful)

radio4fan (304271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503518)

"WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."

/tea-spit

Wikileaks expose corruption, torture, war crimes etc, but it's *wikileaks* who don't respect the rule of law or honor the rights of individuals?

Consider my gast flabbered.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1, Interesting)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503774)

Oh, well since the US Government did all that stuff, it was done for freedom. Why do you hate America?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503966)

Try this: They don't respect iraqi interpreters right to live.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34504072)

We already know about corruption torture war crimes etc. Shouting that the other guy is corrupt does not mean you're a sane or clear headed or lawful or right.

What wikileaks has done with these state dept cable releases is hand a massive advantage to any country that plays against the US and it's allies. If you're say for instance a strategic policy wonk working for China, this is a tresure trove of insider thinking, positions, and strategies which will be taken advantage of.

If you think the US/UK/etc version of democracy is imperfect, which is massively is, wait till the alternate waves of human government catch up with you. The little anarchist fantasy you're currently enjoying will not be possible, other that between your ears.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503528)

Can someone please flag this troll? I mean seriously, it even links a pay-walled NY times article...

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503530)

[the press], not the government that works on behalf of the people, are the arbiters of what does and doesn't constitute properly-classified national security information.

They are not the only arbiters, but they do have a say, and they represent the people as much as the government does, if not more so. That the public has a say in what secrets its government keeps is an necessity for any functioning democracy. Wikileaks' actions are borderline anarchic and ill-reasoned, but the hunger with which the information has been reviewed suggests that the people want to know more than they have been allowed to.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503564)

if forced to choose between "journalist" and activist/advocate, he would choose the latter.

I would do the same. Not because of the great ideals of the latter, but the lack of them in the former.
Sure there are some investigative journalists around, but most are at most editors of news feeds. And by editing I mean changing the order of the words a bit, not even the editing that Wikileaks does.

And I do not care what Assange is. He could be a terrorist child molester for all I care.

It might very well be that the law is not respected, but then you must also look if the law is good. Unfortunately going the legal way to change the law also does not work anymore.

Remember that the USofA was not made because everybody was following the law. (Nor any other country)

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (4, Informative)

shma (863063) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503674)

Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?

Your poor wording aside, it is not illegal to publish classified documents as decided by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co v United States. Leaking classified documents is only a crime for government employees.

Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.

Other than your claim that Assange obtained the documents illegally, which I just showed to be a complete lie, that description applies equally well to Rupert Murdoch, but I don't see you calling for his arrest.

not the government that works on behalf of the people

If you had bothered to read even a fraction of what Wikileaks put out you wouldn't be so ignorant as to make the claim that the US government works "on behalf of the people".

It results in an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.

Did it even occur to you that you just spent your entire post attacking someone who has done nothing illegal and arguing that the media should shut up and only publish whatever information the government decides they should? Sounds like you would enjoy living in a closed and repressive society to me.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (2, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504102)

Nowhere did I say that Assange obtained the documents illegally. They were illegally obtained and released by the leaker (presumed to be PFC Manning).

Should open, democratic societies not be able to maintain information that is secret for purposes of conducting diplomacy and providing for a national defense?

If any secrets are acceptable, then who gets to decide what is secret? The press? A troubled young soldier who believes he can leak without getting caught (and only did because he bragged)? A foreign national who openly admits he is trying to impact US policy? I mean, do you really think that's okay: the subversion of lawful processes in a democratic nation?

Or should that perhaps only be reserved for nations like China, who today are busy censoring any media outlet that is referring to one of their citizens having won a Nobel prize?

Is China going to be a better global steward than the United States, given that nations like Ecuador in one breath offer Julian Assange safe harbor (nothing more than a shrewd political move, no doubt, but still), while simultaneously not renewing the US lease on its Manta air base and instead giving it to China?

I mean, do you really not see a problem with this?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503692)

Yes, because "the cause" is to stroke Assflange's ego and actually ends up bolstering support for those who would want to lock down the internet. Good job morons!

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1)

crush (19364) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503716)

what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.

Here here! Obviously the proper response is to stop being an open society and keep hiding information from the people in this, our God-given democracy, until such time as the baby-eating fascists from Oceania are driven back to their watery realm. Do you have a news letter to which we may subscribe?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503766)

Hypocrisy abounds.

The cases of Xiaobo and Assange are remarkably similar. There's only two differences: China is much better at censorship (give the west time) and in the case of Xiaobo, you chose not to believe China's claims that he is an enemy of the state.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1)

Coldegg (1956060) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503886)

lol - We have millions of people that act against the government more than Xiaobo has in China. You made me laugh so hard... these aren't even comparisons. If Xiaobo had released hundreds of thousands of Chinese documents, they would have cut every appendage off his body and fed it to the dogs. And then gone to work on really hurting him. Is this really the level of dillusion on /.?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1)

Jeian (409916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503806)

Well, since Wikileaks would likely publish any and all classified information it could get its hands on

Which they're not even consistent about, since apparently they'd rather hold back certain files to try and blackmail the US government rather than follow through on "the public's right to know."

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503880)

Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.

I think people can see this just fine. I can see it, anyway, and I applaud it.

Assange may be an unsavory guy, but that's all rather beside the point. The point is that he exposed government corruption and illegal activity that we would not have seen otherwise. He did so in a way that hurts the corrupt (asis obvious from the copious squealing they're doing) but was otherwise cautious and thought out. He did not break an laws while doing so. The one guy who did break the law -- the one who disclosed classified info -- is under arrest and awaiting courts-martial.

The anti-Wikileaks crowd keeps slamming Assange, which is laughabl misguided. Why not slam the real culprits? Those engaging in corrupt behavior, or even if there were none of those, then the pitiful security this data was "guarded" by.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1)

tomthepom (314977) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503904)

Wow, almost don't know where to start with all this meaningless character assassination, righteous pontification and vague generalization here. But one statement really caught my eye;

That's exactly where this is leading, and what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.

This is almost exactly the opposite of reality - open and democratic societies have an advantage exactly because there is more information available - even the stuff the government doesn't want you to know about.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503990)

Stream of illegally-released classified information... that's what you said. Except, not one word of that is actually FACT (yet). Now yes, I realize it will probably become known as fact in the fairly near future. However, today, the only word in there that is correct is "information". The rest is hyperbole. It's GOOD hyperbole. It's believable and most people probably just took it at face value. Bravo.
 
I'm just going to skip over the democratic part... ok no... I'm going to ask, 'how do you know it's democratic?". Faith in your leaders? Because you sure as hell don't have any facts, especially when people like you get through with groups like wikileaks.
 
I don't care if Assange is mentally deranged. It's UTTERLY beside the point. Assange is not wikileaks and wikileaks is not Assange. The fact we are even focusing on him personally is a testament to exactly how well this entire smear campaign is going. Once 'they' make this about people, flawed people, they can sweep it all up and tie it off. Meanwhile everyone just kind of ignores the mounting evidence of malfeasances on the part of our government. We all KNOW the government isn't acting properly, and we have all now seen PROOF, and yet we are arguing about some douche bag with an ego problem? This is some kind of Orwellian nightmare isn't it? Please, WAKE THE HELL UP.
 
This whole thing isn't about Assange, it isn't about secrets and who should or shouldn't keep them, it isn't about wars, or psuedo wars. It isn't about the CIA botching up a publicity stunt. It isn't about ANON taking aim at big bad corporations. THIS IS ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT BREAKING THE LAW. Lying to the public. Cheating, stealing, acting without honor. These kinds of things used to get you hung. Now apparently they get a new term in office. Assange is right about one thing. The US government and the people that support it are fucked up.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34504108)

You, sir, sound like one of the crybaby government dolts that got there feelings hurt because you got caught.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504144)

It wasn't illegally released. There was no crime committed by releasing that data. Assange and his company didn't steal the information, so they are not liable on that front. They didn't receive any valid court order or legal reason not to publish it.

The fact is, he is the only person who was willing to stand up to the government and tell them - deservedly - to go fuck themselves with their dictatorial ideas of international policy and national security. The egg is on their face, and if anyone is guilty of something criminal it would probably be the government.

Our government is doing more damage to our way of life and "freedom" than the "terrorists" ever have. Put them in their place.

kdawson (3, Informative)

MikeB0Lton (962403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503196)

What is with the kdawson articles being posted by other editors?

Re:kdawson (1)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503354)

I talked to Rob Malda. He told me that they are trying this out as a form of voluntary "peer review." CmdrTaco, care to comment on this?

--TrisexualPuppy

Re:kdawson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503754)

CmdrTaco is just leaking and publicizing whatever he receives for the benefit of the Slashdot public. You think Bradley Manning gets any credit? NOPE

Wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503300)

Look at you ignorant dumb fucks.

"cause"?

You guys are so incompetent that you're now damaging innocent organizations that have actually stood by you.

What a bunch of fucking retards. As if supporting somebody who is a potential terrorist (try not to think too hard on it... your own bias limits your ability to see that) wasn't bad enough, now you're lashing out without regard for the innocent.

Nice.

Glad this was posted (1)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503450)

The whole DNS thing is a red herring. First of all EveryDNS is a free DNS service [everydns.com] that survives on donations. They don't have the capacity to survive a cyber attack from the US government. From their page, they have 490m domains that rely on their free service. It's a shame they they didn't hold out and ask for help and donations rather than fold so quickly, but they did have to think about their other users. They aren't the bad guys

Let's assume journalistic incompetence rather than third party malice, but ire is redirected to EasyDNS who are actually one of Wikileaks main supporters. The irony would have been for a Wikileaks .ch provider to be knocked off by its own supporters, but EasyDNS seem to have handled the situation well.

All in all, no harm done. EasyDNS reputation remains intact, Wikileaks remains up.

The same cannot be said for Amazon, Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard.

Phillip.

Re:Glad this was posted (1)

Mad Leper (670146) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503618)

So whatever happened to..

  “It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail - Thomas Jefferson"

So a few innocents get trampled in the rush of mob justice, isn't that what freedom and democracy is all about?

Re:Glad this was posted (2)

Coldegg (1956060) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503790)

It's kind of funny... Wikileaks is guilty of the same thing they are pointing a finger at the US for. That, as you stated above, they have jailed one innocent man in pursuit of freedom. By that I mean... through Wikileaks actions, they have caused damage to quite a few different groups. Some of which did not deserve it... and were merely a victim to tjhe Wikileaks cause. Similar as you know, to the US accidentally damaging innocent groups on their push to provide freedom and democracy to the world (which really isn't their place... they need to play a more defensive role and pull back a bit). It makes me laugh a little at the similarity of the two. Both fighting for their cause... both a bit misguided. I have to admit, I'm not a huge fan of Wikileaks, but that is primarily because I'm quite sure they are ebing funded by specific groups that are specifically trying to damage the US. Cryptome had an interesting note on the irregularity of their financing.

Re:Glad this was posted (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504088)

You can't hold them responsible for collateral damage. I haven't seen or heard anything from them condoning the DDoS attacks. While one could I suppose view the lack of condemnation a tacit sign of support, it seems rather more likely that they've got their hands busy releasing the cables and getting Assange out of jail.

and that's the problem with vigilante justice (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503668)

and mob justice

it is why we have courts. it is why we have government

if everyone were their own policeman, judge, jury, and executioner, injustice would increase, not decrease, even with good intent, because of simple miscommunication

which is why increased gun ownership in peacetime civil society is a gateway to more injustice, not a salvation from it, and why libertarianism will never work: individuals are often confused, and some have bad intent. you need society to be regulated and made secure by a government structure that can be held accountable, and you need to pay for it. the alternative is simply worse

we need government to save us from ourselves: take all of the abuses of every government that ever existed, and guess what: the abuses of the individual are far worse. whether simple petty crime, white collar crime, or well intentioned but confused effort, individuals are worse than governments, when given no structure, no security, and no regulation

i fear my fellow man far more than i fear my government

and i will probably be flamed for saying all of this, but i don't care, bring it on. i like being the one who says the ugly truths about the world that no one wants to admit

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504116)

But, courts and government are essentially mob justice. The only difference is that it's mob justice in slow motion so that we're more likely to find the cases where the mob was wrong. But you do still get people going to prison because of what the mob thinks, the courts at least in the US, tend to be tilted pretty favorably to the prosecution.

Cause? What Cause?! (0)

Capitis (639796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503718)

A cause that condones egregious irresponsibility for the handling of sensitive information? A cause for Anarchy? What's next? Bank account data and credit card numbers released in the name of "free speech"? Or maybe some jackass will steal and publish the codes to unleash a nuke from some third-world nuclear power?

Give me a F'ing break... All you self-righteous soft-skinned assholes pursuing this "cause" enjoy freedoms you have not earned.

If PFC Manning is found guilty of treason he should hang. Assange should be "disappeared". And wikileaks should be harvested and relegated to the stinking pile of ideas conjured by a sub-human sub-culture with absolutely no grasp on anything remotely resembling reality.

Not really "EveryDNS" either (3, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34503742)

The name of the company is DynDNS.com. You know, the company that bought EveryDNS; disabled the ability to sign up for new EveryDNS accounts?

And has been in the process of transitioning accounts from EveryDNS to "DynDNS.com" custom services over 2010, probably so they can eventually discontinue the free services and force everyone to pay?

If they made the decision to kill Wikileaks' services, they should take responsibility for the shutdown, and not hide behind the legacy EveryDNS name which will be a distant memory in some time.

EasyDNS letter to all customers (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34503944)

Here is a letter EasyDNS sent out to all customers last night about this issue. I removed Mark Jeftovic's email and phone number for obvious reasons:

This notice is being sent to all active domain holders on the system.
Your easyDNS username is:
Email address on file for account:
Date username was created:
Username was created from:



In this email:
1. The WikiLeaks Situation

-----------
1. The WikiLeaks Situation
-----------

It is not very often we send out an all-member email blast, so when we do, it's usually pretty important.

First and foremost, everything is ok. Please read the information that follows carefully but understand that we would never do anything that we thought put our members at risk.

The Basic Background:
=====

On Friday, Dec 6th, easyDNS was mistakenly identified in various online channels as the DNS provider who revoked DNS Services for the controversial website Wikileaks, and a large internet backlash ensued against us. In fact, the Wikileaks DNS provider was a free DNS provider in New Hampshire called "EveryDNS.net". At some point this was mistakenly reported as "easyDNS", and it gathered momentum from there. The problem was compounded on Saturday, Dec 7th when the New York Times picked up the story, also incorrectly identifying us as the party who "unplugged" Wikileaks. The U.K based Guardian did the same thing again on Tuesday, December 7th.
A timeline of events has been posted here:
http://easyurl.net/5119e [easyurl.net]

And our original rebuttal to the misinformation was posted here:
http://easyurl.net/a3191 [easyurl.net]


easyDNS Added To WikiLeaks.ch DNS
======

On Sunday, Dec 5th, we were approached by a group acting on behalf of Wikileaks and asked to provide DNS for their fallback domain WikiLeaks.ch. We agreed to this on several conditions.
http://easyurl.net/fbbff [easyurl.net]

We did not take this decision lightly, and whichever side of the fence you fall regarding what Wikileaks is doing, after being falsley accused of unplugging Wikileaks and taking an enormous amount of backlash for doing so, we felt we did not have much choice in the matter but to forge ahead and take on this challenge.
http://easyurl.net/507d8 [easyurl.net]

We actually consider this part of the situation to be well in hand. Tonight the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail ran a story about this bizarre sequence of events and we expect it to run in the print edition (possibly as the cover story) on Thursday, Dec 10.
That story is here: http://easyurl.net/gandm [easyurl.net]

However, and this is large part of the motivation for this email, the Globe story concluded with the following quotation, which we feel sends the wrong message, as I mispoke when I said the following: "Our lawyers have basically told us that if they want to shut us down they'll show up with an injunction and we'll have to follow it and then try and have it overturned later," This may connote that we think we, as a company, may be shut down. We do NOT think this is going to happen at all. What I meant to convey in the quote is: "If they want US (easyDNS) to shut THEM (WikiLeaks) down, they'll show up with an injunction, and we'll have to follow it, etc etc". And if that happened, we would be terminating service to wikileaks alone. Further information about this clarification is here:
http://easyurl.net/gm2 [easyurl.net]

We wanted to let you know as an easyDNS member, that we are taking every measure to ensure that this situation does not disrupt the continuity of your domain services at all. In conclusion, we believe we have taken the course of action that fits who we are as a company. If you've been dealing with us for any amount of time then hopefully you know what kind of company that is. I also hope you agree that, regardless of your opinion of Wikileaks itself, we are playing the hand we've been dealt in accordance with who we are as a company.
In short, we think this is the right thing to do, and that is why we're doing it.

------------
If you are not already subscribed to our blog feed in your favorite RSS reader, I suggest doing so via http://blog.easydns.org/ [easydns.org] or making a habit of checking the blog for updates. We also put out info as it happens on Twitter, http://twitter.com/easydns [twitter.com]
------------

As always, if anyone has any questions or concerns regarding any of these issues, feel free to email me or call me voice.

Thank you,

Mark Jeftovic,
President & CEO, easyDNS Technologies Inc.
ph. REDACTED
http://www.easydns.com/ [easydns.com]

Not all information is equal (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34504034)

For some information, it is a privilege for the producer to have a medium via which he can disseminate that information. Being a privilege of benefit primarily to himself, he should be willing to pay for whatever costs are involved.

For other information, it is a privilege for the consumer to have access to it. In this case, the consumer should be willing to pay or provide something in return for the privilege.

Problems arise in the first case when the producer takes the opinion that he is providing some valuable service to a consumer, as opposed to himself.

Problems arise in the second case when the consumer would be happy to exchange something in return for content or for use of a medium, but faces the problem of limited or nonexistent options for doing that.

We tend to come around again and again to marginally adequate solutions, such as "eyes on advertisements" or "micropayments" or "exchange of personal or demographic data". Here is where a visionary genius is welcome to solve the problem in some revolutionary way. Any volunteers?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...